Down To Earth

Editorial. Sunita Narain.
April XXX. XIV

Junk games and
schoolchildren

by Sunita
Narain

“T here is nothing called junk food. The problem
with obesity lies with children who do not
exercise enough. What is needed is for them to run
and jump, and to do this they need to consume
high-calorie food. So, food high in salt, sugar
and fat is good for them.” This is what was
argued vehemently and rudely by representatives of
the food industry in the committee, set up under
directions from the Delhi High Court to frame
guidelines for junk food in the
country.

On the
face of it there was no one from the junk food
industry in the committee. In the early meetings,
we only knew that there were members of two
associations who were representing the food
industry in the committee. But as discussions got
under way, it became clear that the big junk food
industry was present in the meeting. We learnt
that the member representing the National
Restaurant Association of India was a top official
from Coca-Cola—the world’s most
powerful beverage company that is at the centre of
the junk food debate globally. The other grouping,
All India Food Processors Association, was
represented by Swiss food giant Nestle, which has
commercial interest in instant noodles and other
junk food.

The other members of the
committee were eminent paediatricians,
nutritionists and public health specialists. The
committee had been set up because of a case filed
in 2010 by Delhi-based NGO Uday Foundation, which
asked for a ban on junk food in schools and in
their vicinity. In September 2013, the High Court
ordered the government to set up a committee to
frame guidelines for food as the “ill
effects of eating junk food have been documented
by public health experts and also
paediatricians”.

The first move by the
junk food industry was to block the setting up of
the committee itself. But the court rejected this.
The industry then changed tactics to argue that
the problem was not junk food but lack of physical
activity.

For the rest of us in
the committee the issues were: what makes food
junk; why is it bad for our health; and what is
being done to regulate junk food in other parts of
the world? A working group was set up to frame the
guidelines to present to the expert committee,
which in turn would then report to the
court.

The Hyderabad-based
National Institute of Nutrition has defined junk
food as food that contains little or no protein,
vitamin or minerals but is rich in salt, fat and
energy. There is also robust evidence of the
linkage between consumption of this food and
non-communicable diseases like diabetes,
hypertension and heart diseases. Childhood obesity
has become the most serious health concern; even
in our part of the world were malnutrition is a
big concern. Study after study points to
high-calorie intake because of unrestricted access
to energy-dense fast food in school canteens and
neighbourhoods. While exercise is vital, it is not
a substitute for a balanced diet.

World over governments
are acting to tax junk food, ban it in schools and
restrict its advertisement. All this is adding up
to high-profile campaigns, where celebrities shun
endorsement of this food and push for healthier
options. In the US, first lady Michelle Obama has
taken on the mantle to campaign against junk
food.

The question before the
working group was not whether action was needed,
but how to address these concerns. The first step
was to build the criteria to define and identify
junk food—how much of sugar or fat or salt
in food is unhealthy. Based on this, a list was
prepared of the most common junk food that would
need to be regulated. It included chips and other
fried packaged food; carbonated beverages; instant
noodles; and confectionery.

The working group was
unanimous in its position: children are not the
best judge of their food and are aggressively
targeted by ads and seduced by celebrities.
Moreover, schools are the right place to learn
right values about nutrition. We, therefore,
recommended a ban on junk food in and around
schools, and also a canteen policy that foods
categorised as green (healthy) would constitute
over 80 per cent of the choices available. We said
that non-standardised junk food, like samosa,
would be available sparingly in the canteens.
There would be efforts to “green” this
food through better ingredients and cooking
mediums. This food was categorised as orange. Red
category food—common junk food—would
not be available at all.

But all this would not
work unless people are informed about what they
are eating. To do this, labelling on food should
specify how much fat, sugar or salt it contained
in relation to their daily diet. The working group
also recommended strongly against celebrity
endorsement.

But this was clearly
unacceptable to big business. They struck back. By
now they could not argue that nothing should be
done. The health evidence was overwhelming. Their
position was that instead of banning such food,
children should be asked to “eat
responsibly”. But they could not explain
what eating responsibly meant. The final report of
the committee has two positions: the industry says
the availability of junk food should be restricted
or limited in and around schools; the rest say
junk food should be banned. Now the report is with
the High Court for it to take a decision. Wait and
watch this space for more. This is business not to
be left to business to decide.